Joined: 21 Nov 2009
Posts: 555
? | '); //--> |
Joined: 18 Sep 2009
Posts: 2154
? | '); //--> |
Joined: 19 May 2009
Posts: 111
? | '); //--> |
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 4727
? | '); //--> |
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 983
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:47 am?? ?Post subject: | |
In the context of operating a car, the premium for a $1 million umbrella isn't even noticeable. For one or two hundred dollars a year you get a team of insurance company claim adjusters and attorneys to represent you in court if you get sued. Much less expensive than hiring your own attorney. I accept that the chances of a large lawsuit against me is small, but it makes me feel better to know there is a policy that could pay a million dollars as well as attorney's fees if something crazy happened.
Just a personal opinion. I don't sell insurance. Good luck whatever you decide! John Jean-Paul Sartre, writer and philosopher (1905-1980) |
? | '); //--> |
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1558
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:03 pm?? ?Post subject: | |
There's also a completely different way to look at this. Forget about your net worth or your future income prospects, and consider you moral responsibility to pay for the harm that you do to others.
IMO, a strategy that says I don't need to worry about it because I don't have many assets and I can just declare bankruptcy is morally wrong. I don't mean to sound sanctimonious, but it just seems a little irresponsible for a financial plan to include the risk of doing uncompensated harm to others, especially if that risk can be easily and inexpensively mitigated. I understand that many folks are just barely getting by, and the added premium may be a real burden. Still, IMO the decision should be mostly about the potential for harm to others and ability to pay premiums to mitigate it. Sure, as a side effect you might end up enriching ambulance chasers and the like, but that's just a built-in cost of doing business. Jim Last edited by magellan on Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:38 pm; edited 2 times in total |
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 812
Joined: 21 Nov 2009
Posts: 555
Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 5:37 pm?? ?Post subject: | |
But wouldn't the presence of an umbrella insurance make you a more "sue-able" target?
For e.g. if it was some college kid with no assets and minimum liability payout, the victim might be less inclined to sue because not much money can be made and it may be too much of a hassle (especially if the incident involved was not too serious). But if the victim knew that the college kid had a 2 million umbrella, he will be encouraged to sue cause he can get as much a 2 million payout. Does that make sense? |
? | '); //--> |
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 3068
? | '); //--> |
Joined: 01 Mar 2007
Posts: 18382
? | '); //--> |
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 382
? | '); //--> |
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 9
? | '); //--> |
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 4347
Location: Washington DC area Born 1946
Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 7:25 pm?? ?Post subject: | |||
1. In respone to the original question, I think an umbrella policy makes sense even if actual assets are not currently large because it could protect you against a drain on future income, as well as some assets that might come your way (say an inheritance) before you got around to getting a policy. 2. As to having the policy making you more of a target, I think, though, that having the backing of an insurance company's high powered lawyers behind you (actually the insurance company;s money) more than offsets the potentially higher risk. Someone seeing (if they could even find out) a $1 million umbrella policy would also know (or their attorneys would know) that the insurance company will fight hard to not pay out any significant portion of that $1 million frivolusly without real justification. |
? | '); //--> |
Source: http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=81466&start=0&mrr=1314573940
bourbon jamaica cruises delaware delaware hurricane names weather philadelphia
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.